Why No One Believes What Democrats Say, Part 6,254

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 18:35


Evan Bayh on Bhutto:

"When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], 'See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who's strong to defend America at a time of concern.' Well, Senator Clinton is strong," he said. "And she's experienced. And she's tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that's true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that's one of the reasons why I'm supporting her."

Few things irritate me more about prominent DLC types than their tendency to preface virtually everything they propose for Democrats with how that something will help Democrats get elected. They do it all the time. I know that an election is close, and electability will be a concern for some. Still, it is one thing to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America, and quite another to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America because otherwise Republicans will attack us. The former isn't very good, as it consents to a conservative view of foreign policy. However, the later is even worse, since it implies we need to adopt a conservative view of foreign policy in which we don't really believe so that we can accrue more political power. One buys into Republican and conservative frames, while the other buys into Republican and conservative frames while simultaneously making Democrats look like valueless, power hungry politicians who think they can trick the rubes who are the American people. And so, in addition to making Democrats look weak on national security, DLC types like Bayh end up reinforcing a second insidious conservative narrative: that Democrats are a bunch of soulless, liberal elites who think they are better than most of the backward rubes who live in America.

The electability language of the DLC is so colossally bad for Democrats as a whole that it is difficult to think of a less effective way for Democrats to get elected than continuing to utilize said language.

Chris Bowers :: Why No One Believes What Democrats Say, Part 6,254

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Zzzzzzzz...... (0.00 / 0)
Nobody cares what Bayh says.  Even if they did, he's so boring and mundane a speaker, you'd fall asleep prior to him reaching his point.

Even in a town full of non-charismatic people who seemingly are in the wrong field, Evan Bayh takes the cake.  I'd rather watch paint dry than hear him speak.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


avenged savant .. (0.00 / 0)
you do understand that Bayh is on the HRC short list to succeed Darth Vader if she wins the nomiantion .. right?

[ Parent ]
yes, I do. And he'll get eaten alive by the GOP VP nominee (0.00 / 0)
in any debate.

Bayh sucks and Indiana will NEVER go blue in a presidential election in our lifetimes no matter WHO is our nominee or veep pick.

I predict she will pick Strickland.  But he's only in his first term.  But she seems to have a hard-on for Ohio, unlike Kerry and Gore, who both never paid as much attention to Ohio as they should have.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


[ Parent ]
Not that I like Bayh (0.00 / 0)
but he could potentially help in Ohio and Missouri and Iowa.  There are persuadable voters in all three of those states that could go for the sort of quasi-hawkish centrist message that Clinton/Bayh would offer. 

Just because Indiana isn't a swing state doesn't mean that the Midwest isn't a swing region.


[ Parent ]
Do not lump an historically dovish state like Iowa with Ohio (0.00 / 0)
and Missouri.  That's dangerous.

I agree with your premise that Bayh could help as a quasi-hawk with OH and MO.  But Iowa has always been, and is, dovish.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


[ Parent ]
I am talking about (0.00 / 0)
constituencies within those states, not the entire states.  I am from Missouri, and I have lived on the iowa border for an extended period of time.  Missouri and Ohio, as a whole, are not hawkish, either. 

I am not lumping in these states as the same thing.  They are obviously not.


[ Parent ]
Chris, Bahy's statement about Pakistan (0.00 / 0)
was almost a mirror image of the statement he made a week befor the 2004 Iowa primary, saying (paraphrasing from memory) that a vote for Dean would send a message to the country that the Democratic Party was the party of weakness and defeat and we would never ever regain the White House again.

I can't find the quote, but you might have better search skills than me.  Find it for us if you can.  The comparison would be beautiful.


That's what the DLC is all about.... (0.00 / 0)
...Winning control over the party even if it means keeping the party from winning against Republicans.  Bayh is obviously more concerned with having a member of the DLC wing of the party in charge than moving the ball forward. It's not just about what "will help Democrats elected," because the implication is that only certain types of Democrats can get elected. Taking advice from the DLC over how Democrats can win, is like taking advice from the RNC about what's best for the country.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox